| AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE Black Edition AM3 CPU |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Written by Olin Coles | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 09 February 2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AMD Phenom II X3 720 BEPeople have a tendency to like things in two's, especially when it comes to our computer hardware. Dual-core processors and dual-channel memory configurations have trained us to accept pairs. Even video cards can be paired for CrossFireX or SLI arrays. So where does this leave the odd number three? Perhaps it leaves it exactly where you might think: better than two, but not quite four. Three is a number not normally associated with processors, although it's actually gaining momentum thanks to Intel's triple-channel memory architecture that caters to the 3GB sweet-spot for Windows XP. Despite this, a triple-core processor just doesn't seem natural to many of us, because we're so used to seeing everything come in twos. But three isn't a bad thing at all, because AMD's Phenom II X3 720 BE processor is actually quite good. Benchmark Reviews compares the 2.8GHz Black Edition AM3/AM2+ CPU against the Intel Core i7-920 and other AMD processors. You might be surprised by how well the odd man out can fit in. The Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors have established themselves as remarkable products, without question. But the same thing that made them so popular is the performance to price ratio that made the original AMD Athlons an instant consumer favorite. AMD hasn't been able to reproduce that winning formula for a very long time; until the Phenom II processor series launched, code named Dragon. Beginning with the Phenom II X4 810 and X3 720 BE, the Dragon series takes advantage of both AM2+ and AM3 motherboard sockets, and can manage DDR2 as well as DDR3 system memory.
The Dragon platform is AMDs last hope for success in a time when financial ruin is destroying every business on the planet. The Phenom II, which is based on the (AM2+ backward compatible) AM3 interface is everything that the original Phenom wasn't: a value-packaged high-performance processor that actually works. Without going into the history of failures surrounding K10, suffice it to say that AMD has not had much luck with launching new architectures lately. As a result, the public has waned in their expectations from the only real competition for Intel products. Perhaps the timing is right then, and consumers won't hastily spend unnecessary cash on a Core i7 processor that performs exactly the same as a much less expensive Phenom II CPU. Benchmark Reviews compares the field of modern-day products, and tests the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition AM3/AM2+ 2.8GHz processor (HDZ720WFGIBOX) against the Intel Core i7-920 Processor BX80601920. For less than $145 (at the time of initial product launch) you would be surprised by what you're getting for the money. Factor in the backwards compatibility with AM2+ motherboards and DDR2, and the choice might be ridiculously clear. About Advanced Micro Devices, Inc (AMD)Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD) is an innovative technology company dedicated to collaborating with customers and partners to ignite the next generation of computing and graphics solutions at work, home, and play. Phenom II X3 720 BE FeaturesMajor feature enhancements for 45nm AMD Phenom II:
Major silicon enhancements for 45nm AMD Phenom II:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Processor |
AMD Phenom |
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8xxx/Q9xxx |
AMD Phenom II |
Intel Core i7 |
|
Manufacturing Process |
65nm |
45nm |
45nm |
45nm |
|
L1 Cache |
64K + 64K per core |
32KB + 32KB per core |
64K + 64K per core |
32KB + 32KB per core |
|
L2 Cache |
512KB per core |
2x3MB, 2x4MB or 2x6MB |
512KB per core |
256KB per core |
|
L3 Cache |
2MB |
- |
6MB |
8MB |
|
Transistor Count |
450M |
456M (6MB/8MB L2) or 820M (12MB L2) |
758M |
731M |
|
Die Size |
285 mm2 |
164 mm2 (6MB/8MB L2) or 214 mm2 (12MB L2) |
258 mm2 |
263 mm2 |
The Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition offers a total combined cache size of 8.5MB, split into three levels. The L1 cache delivers 64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (512KB total L1 per processor), while the L2 cache offers 512KB of data cache per core (2MB total L2 per processor). The final level 3 (L3) cache shares 6MB among the three processor cores.
Based on the updated AM3 architecture, the backwards compatibility with AM2+ socket motherboards, increased cache size, and a larger IHS footprint, and unrestricted 'Black Edition' clock multiplier, the Phenom II X3 720 BE may be exactly what hardware enthusiasts and overclockers need during an economic recession. In the following sections, we will compare the Phenom II series against the Intel Core i7-920 Processor BX80601920. While benchmarks help separate the products, real-world experience and gaming frame rates paired with affordable product pricing will ultimately decide which CPU is really 'better'.
Testing & Results
Testing Methodology
At the start of all video performance tests, the previous display adapter driver is uninstalled and trace components are removed using Driver Cleaner Pro. We then restart the computer system to establish our display settings and define the monitor. Once the hardware is prepared, we begin our testing. Each benchmark test program begins after a system restart, and the very first result for every test will be ignored since it often only caches the test. This process proved extremely important in the World in Conflict and Supreme Commander benchmarks, as the first run served to cache maps allowing subsequent tests to perform much better than the first. Each test is completed five times, with the average results displayed in our article.
Our site polls and statistics indicate that the over 90% of our visitors use their PC for playing video games, and practically every one of you are using a screen resolutions mentioned above. Since all of the benchmarks we use for testing represent different game engine technology and graphic rendering processes, I feel that this battery of tests will provide a diverse range of results for you to gauge performance on your own computer system. Since most gamers and enthusiasts are still using Windows XP, it was decided that DirectX 9 would be used for all tests.
Intel Core i7 Test System
-
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P (Intel X58/ICH10R Chipset) with version F6c BIOS
-
Processor: Intel Core i7-920 BX80601920 2.667 GHz
-
System Memory: 3GB Tri-Channel DDR3 1066 CL6-6-6-18
-
Video: Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Toxic (Catalyst 9.1)
-
System Drive: OCZ Apex 120GB SSD OCZSSD2-1APX120G
-
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP-2 (optimized to 16 processes at idle)
AMD Dragon Test System
-
Motherboard: ASUS M3A78-T AM2+ (AMD 790 Chipset) with version 802 BIOS
-
Processor #1: AMD Phenom II X4 810 2.6 GHz HDX810WFGIBOX
-
System Memory: 4GB Ganged Crucial Ballistix Tracer 800MHz DDR2 Memory Kit CL5-5-5-15
-
Video: Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Toxic (Catalyst 9.1)
-
System Drive: OCZ Apex 120GB SSD OCZSSD2-1APX120G
-
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP-2 (optimized to 16 processes at idle)
Benchmark Applications
-
Devil May Cry 4 Benchmark Demo (1280x1024, Ultra Quality, 8x MSAA)
-
EVEREST Ultimate Edition v5.00.1016 by Lavalys
-
Far Cry 2 v1.02 (1280x1024, Very High Performance, Ultra-High Quality, 8x AA)
-
Passmark PerformanceTest v6.1 Buid 1018
-
PCMark05 v1.2.0 by Futurmark Corporation
-
SPECviewperf v10.0 by Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation
Devil May Cry 4 Gaming
Devil May Cry 4 was released on PC in early 2007 as the fourth installment to the Devil May Cry video game series. DMC4 is a direct port from the PC platform to console versions, which operate at the native 720P game resolution with no other platform restrictions. Devil May Cry 4 uses the refined MT Framework game engine, which has been used for many popular Capcom game titles over the past several years.
MT Framework is an exclusive seventh generation game engine built to be used with games developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and PC ports. MT stands for "Multi-Thread", "Meta Tools" and "Multi-Target". Originally meant to be an outside engine, but none matched their specific requirements in performance and flexibility. Games using the MT Framework are originally developed on the PC and then ported to the other two console platforms.
On the PC version a special bonus called Turbo Mode is featured, giving the game a slightly faster speed, and a new difficulty called Legendary Dark Knight Mode is implemented. The PC version also has both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 mode for Microsoft Windows XP and Vista Operating Systems.
It's always nice to be able to compare the results we receive here at Benchmark Reviews with the results you test for on your own computer system. Usually this isn't possible, since settings and configurations make it nearly difficult to match one system to the next; plus you have to own the game or benchmark tool we used.
Devil May Cry 4 fixes this, and offers a free benchmark tool available for download. Because the DMC4 MT Framework game engine is rather low-demand for today's cutting edge multi-GPU video cards, Benchmark Reviews uses the 1280x1024 resolution to test with 8x AA (highest AA setting available to Radeon HD video cards) and 16x AF. The benchmark runs through four test scenes, but scene #2 and #4 are the ones that usually offer a challenge. Displayed below is our result for the test.
The point to using a game like Devil May Cry 4 is that because of its rather low demand on graphics and multi-threaded engine, the frame rate becomes CPU-bound. Taking an average of five tests after dropping the highest and lowest of the seven benchmark runs, we get a more relative impression of how the processor might help or hamper a games frame rate.
Beginning with the AMD Phenom II X3 720 triple-core 2.8GHz processor, we see that three can be as effective (or more) than four as the frame rate reaches 111 FPS in test Scene 2 and the highest result of 127 FPS in test Scene 4. Next was the 2.6GHz Phenom II X4 810, which scored only 109 FPS in Scene 2, and a mere 122 FPS in Scene 4. The 4MB L3 cache may be showing itself, especially when the other two (X3 720 and X4 940) have a 6MB L3 available to them. The AMD Phenom II X4 940 3.0GHz processor HDZ940XCGIBOX performed the best on test Scene 2 with 114 FPS, while offering a close second-best on Scene 4 with 126 FPS. Finally, the 2.67GHz Intel Core i7-920 offered the worst performance of the bunch with 108 FPS during Scene 2 tests, and also on Scene 4 wth 117 FPS.
If gaming is the argument for Intel processors, someone needs to go back and re-examine the performance. While it's not entirely unbiased to use a Radeon HD 4870 video card for testing, I felt that ultimately it was more fair than using an NVIDIA product when there are so many games 'tuned' for their hardware over ATI's. Regardless, in our Devil May Cry 4 tests it was apparent that the Core i7-920 doesn't maintain the architectural efficiency to beat out any of the AMD Phenom II processors which cost much less.
EVEREST Benchmark Tests
EVEREST Ultimate Edition is an industry leading system diagnostics and benchmarking solution for enthusiasts PC users, based on the award-winning EVEREST Technology. During system optimizations and tweaking it provides essential system and overclock information, advanced hardware monitoring and diagnostics capabilities to check the effects of the applied settings. CPU, FPU and memory benchmarks are available to measure the actual system performance and compare it to previous states or other systems. Furthermore, complete software, operating system and security information makes EVEREST Ultimate Edition a comprehensive system diagnostics tool that offers a total of 100 pages of information about your PC.
All of the benchmarks used in our testbed: Queen, Photoworxx, ZLib, and AES, all rely on basic x86 instructions, and consume very low system memory while also being aware of HyperThreading, multi-processors, and multi-core processors.
Coming out of the gates, EVERESTs Queen benchmark puts the Intel Core i7 920 over 31% ahead of the AMD Phenom II processors. Don't let the benchmarks fool you though, because the Queen and Photoworxx tests are synthetic benchmarks that operate the function many times over and over-exaggerate by several magnitudes what the real-world performance would be like. The Queen benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and misprediction penalties of the CPU. It does this by finding possible solutions to the classic queen problem on a chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores.
Like the Queen benchmark, the Photoworxx tests for penalties against pipeline architecture. The synthetic Photoworxx benchmark stresses the integer arithmetic and multiplication execution units of the CPU and also the memory subsystem. Due to the fact that this test performs high memory read/write traffic, it cannot effectively scale in situations where more than two processing threads are used. The EVEREST Photoworxx benchmark performs the following tasks on a very large RGB image:
-
Fill
-
Flip
-
Rotate90R (rotate 90 degrees CW)
-
Rotate90L (rotate 90 degrees CCW)
-
Random (fill the image with random colored pixels)
-
RGB2BW (color to black & white conversion)
-
Difference
-
Crop
While the triple-core X3 720 doesn't prove very effective in Photoworxx testing, it didn't seem at all sluggish when I used it for real-world photo manipulation activities. But doing them synthetically better is what benchmarks are all about. What becomes strange then, is that the quad-core Phenom II X4 810 and X4 940 perform nearly identically. Of course, the Intel Core i7 920 clears the entire lot by a 51% margin.
The next synthetic benchmark we've selected measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. ZLib is designed as a free lossless data compression library for use on virtually any computer hardware and operating system. The ZLib data format is itself portable across platforms and has a footprint independent of input data that can be reduced at some cost in compression. In our tests, the Intel Core i7 920 certainly shows it's muscle and might as the top-performer with 89.8 MBps Zip library compression. Not far behind however, the AMD Phenom II X4 940 offers nearly as much performance with 80.3 MBps.
The AES integer benchmark measures CPU performance using AES data encryption. It utilizes Vincent Rijmen, Antoon Bosselaers and Paulo Barreto's public domain C code in ECB mode and consumes 48 MB of memory. The Phenom II X4 940 processor comes in at the top with a score of 21713, following behind by only 2% is the Core i7 920 with 21276. Next is the AMD Phenom II X4 810 with a score of 18850, with the X3 720 finishing out the testing with 15216.
Far Cry 2 Gaming
Ubisoft has developed Far Cry 2 as a sequel to the original, but with a very different approach to game play and story line. Far Cry 2 features a vast world built on Ubisoft's new game engine called Dunia, meaning "world", "earth" or "living" in Farci. The setting in Far Cry 2 takes place on a fictional Central African landscape, set to a modern day timeline.
The Dunia engine was built specifically for Far Cry 2, by Ubisoft Montreal development team. It delivers realistic semi-destructible environments, special effects such as dynamic fire propagation and storms, real-time night-and-day sun light and moon light cycles, dynamic music system, and non-scripted enemy A.I actions.
The Dunia game engine takes advantage of multi-core processors as well as multiple processors and supports DirectX 9 as well as DirectX 10. Only 2 or 3 percent of the original CryEngine code is re-used, according to Michiel Verheijdt, Senior Product Manager for Ubisoft Netherlands. Additionally, the engine is less hardware-demanding than CryEngine 2, the engine used in Crysis.
However, it should be noted that Crysis delivers greater character and object texture detail, as well as more destructible elements within the environment. For example; trees breaking into many smaller pieces and buildings breaking down to their component panels. Far Cry 2 also supports the amBX technology from Philips. With the proper hardware, this adds effects like vibrations, ambient colored lights, and fans that generate wind effects.
There is a benchmark tool in the PC version of Far Cry 2, which offers an excellent array of settings for performance testing. Benchmark Reviews used the maximum settings allowed for our tests, with the resolution set to 1920x1200. The performance settings were all set to 'Very High', DirectX 9 Render Quality was set to 'Ultra High' overall quality, 8x anti-aliasing was applied, and HDR and Bloom were enabled.
Using a low resolution paired to low quality settings, Far Cry 2 becomes much more CPU-dependant on producing fast frame rates. The AMD Phenom II series doesn't bode well for this particular test, as the fall behind by nearly 50% or more. Turning up the quality and effects to their highest settings, but keeping the low resolution (which is common for 17" LCD displays), things become more GPU dependant. Illustrating this point is the relative proximity of each test score, with every single processor scoring within 0.7 FPS of each other.
Before moving on, it's important to ensure you've understood these results. The point this benchmark makes is clear: users who play games with real-world settings will see no difference in performance. If a decent modern video card is used, there will be no difference whatsoever. However, if you're one of the very few people who will own a modern processor and pair it to out-dated graphics, then you can expect your processor to compensate for the difference. From my experience as a professional system builder, the CPU only makes a difference when the video card is underpowered. Seeing these results, it could be suggested the money saved by purchasing an affordable processor could be better spent on a capable graphics card.
Passmark PerformanceTest
PassMark PerformanceTest is a PC hardware benchmark utility that allows a user to quickly assess the performance of their computer and compare it to a number of standard 'baseline' computer systems. The Passmark PerformanceTest CPU tests all benchmark the mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, and 3DNow! instructions of modern processors.
In our tests there were several area's of concentration for each each benchmark, which are combined into one compound score. This score is referred to as the CPU Mark, and is a composite of the following tests:
-
Integer Math
-
Floating Point Math
-
Find Prime Numbers
-
SSE/3DNow!
-
Compression
-
Encryption
-
Image Rotation
-
String Sorting
Taken together as a whole, the eight separate CPU tests offers a very realistic segment of what taxes the processor most for users. The tests are grossly exaggerated synthetic benchmarks, but they can still help illustrate the difference.
The triple-core AMD X3 720 Black Edition scores 1968 CPU Marks, and comes in behind the others. Performing nearly 21% better than the X3 720 is the Phenom II X4 810, which scores 2374 CPU Marks. Next comes the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition with a 16% improvement over the X4 810, taking the score to 2748 CPU Marks. Finally, the Intel Core i7 920 earns 4340 CPU Marks, yielding a 58% improvement over the Phenom II X4 940.
Keep in mind that these are magnified artificial benchmark tests, and that the Core i7-920 does not actually perform 58% better than a Phenom II X4 940, or 121% better than an X3 720. It is going to perform slightly better, to be sure, but real-world activities do not include floating point math or many hundreds of image rotations in a few seconds.
PCMark05 Benchmark Tests
Using synthetic benchmarks to compare one product to another has some distinct advantages when testing similar hardware, yet I have never found myself completely satisfied by the process. I have come to understand that they're important for comparing "apples to apples", and that the results are usually very consistent. But as with any synthetic benchmark, the numbers can often mean very little more than just numbers. We don't take a high score on a synthetic benchmark to mean that a product will/should perform well, and neither should you. The difference between projected performance and actual performance is the difference between fire and the fire-fly.
PCMark is a series of computer benchmark tools developed by Futuremark. The tools are designed to test the performance of the user's CPU, read/write speeds of RAM and hard drives. We have used these tests to simulate a battery of applications and tasks, which will produce results we can compare to other systems using similar hardware.
Many enthusiasts consider PCMark to be a realistic benchmark for simulating real-world performance. If that's true, then Intel is in for some heartache. Considering the much lower price point of the Phenom II processors we've tested, it doesn't look good when they actually outperform the Core i7 920 CPU; it looks even worse when they beat it. To be fair though, we're not comparing apples to apples.
Although all of the systems we tested used the same OCZ Apex 120GB SSD imaged with Windows XP Professional, and the same Sapphire Radeon HD 4870 Toxic video card, they still are very different at their core. The Intel test system gets 3GB of Tri-Channel DDR3 operating at 1066 MHz with a latency of CL6-6-6-18, while the AMD platforms receive 4GB of 800MHz DDR2 operating in ganged mode with a latency of 5-5-5-15. Sure, this amount to little or no difference, but it's still a difference nevertheless. Of course, the Intel X58-based Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P is also nothing at all like the AMD 790-based ASUS M3A78-T AM2+ motherboard which offers integrated graphics (which were disabled in the BIOS).
So beginning with the PCMark score, it's interesting to find the AMD Phenom II X4 940 BE processor at the top with a score of 10558. Training behind by only 6% is the AMD Phenom II X3 720, which seemed so odd that I completed an entire sixth and seventh round of testing to be sure of these results. Next came the Intel Core i7-920 with 9892, and trails behind the X4 940 by 7%. The 6MB L3 cache on the X4 810 doesn't seem to be hurting very much, because even with the lowest score of 9754 it still only trails behind the leader by 8%.
PCMark05 offers several processor intensive tests which comprise the CPU benchmark suite. Taking away all of the outside influence from our testing, and concentrating on CPU-only benchmarks, the table begins to turn ever so slightly. The CPU benchmark suite includes the following tests:
-
File Compression
-
File Decompression
-
File Encryption
-
File Decryption
-
Image Decompression
-
Audio Compression
-
File Compression
-
File Encryption
-
File Decompression
-
File Decryption
-
Audio Decompression
-
Image Decompression
Using the combined test performance to create a artificial score, PCMark05 generates a score called CPU Marks. Intel's Core i7-920 secures a narrow lead with 9140 CPU Marks, with the Phenom II X4 940 trailing a mere 0.004% behind and offering a near-identical score. The X4 810 comes next, with a score of 7914 and 15% difference from the i7-920. Finally, the triple-core X3 720 performs with 7715 CPU Marks, and trails behind the leader by 18%.
Of the many tests inside the CPU suite, I decided to illustrate the one benchmark with the largest performance difference. The Audio Compression benchmark test measures performance with synthetic encoding, and the Intel Core i7-920 pulls ahead with 40.2 MBps for the lead. Performing at 34.8 MBps was the Phenom II X4 940 BE, which trailed by nearly 16%. The X3 820 offered 35.5 MBps, while the X4 810 delivered 30.1 MBps and trailed behind the leader by 23%.
SPECperfview CATIA Tests
SPECviewperf is a portable OpenGL performance benchmark program written in C. It was developed by IBM. Later updates and significant contributions were made by SGI, Digital (Compaq, HP), 3Dlabs (Creative Labs) and other SPECopc project group members. SPECviewperf provides a vast amount of flexibility in benchmarking OpenGL performance. Currently, the program runs on most implementations of UNIX, Windows XP, Windows 2000, and Linux.
SPECviewperf parses command lines and data files, sets the rendering state, and converts data sets to a format that can be traversed using OpenGL rendering calls. It renders the data set for a pre-specified amount of time or number of frames with animation between frames. Finally, it outputs the results. SPECviewperf reports performance in frames per second. Other information about the system under test - all the rendering states, the time to build display lists (if applicable), and the data set used - are also output in a standardized report.
A "benchmark" using SPECviewperf is really a single invocation of SPECviewperf with command-line options telling the SPECviewperf program which data set to read in, which texture file to use, what OpenGL primitive to use to render the data set, which attributes to apply and how frequently, whether or not to use display lists, and so on. One quickly realizes that there are an infinite number of SPECviewperf "benchmarks" (an infinite number of data sets multiplied by an almost infinite number of command-line states).
The catia-02 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workload generated by the CATIA V5R12 application from Dassault Systemes. Three models are measured using various modes in CATIA. Phil Harris of LionHeart Solutions, developer of CATBench2003, supplied SPEC/GPC with the models used to measure the CATIA application. The models are courtesy of CATBench2003 and CATIA Community.
The car model contains more than two million points. SPECviewperf replicates the geometry represented by the smaller engine block and submarine models to increase complexity and decrease frame rates. After replication, these models contain 1.2 million vertices (engine block) and 1.8 million vertices (submarine).
State changes as made by the application are included throughout the rendering of the model, including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application. The state changes put considerably more stress on graphics subsystems than the simple geometry dumps found in older SPECviewperf viewsets.
In our performance comparison tests, there was very little disparity between processors. While the majority of the CATIA testing is graphics bound, it also relies heavily on efficient processor architecture. Beginning our chart is the AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE 2.8GHz, which scored a weighted geometric mean of 15.31 on average. Next was the X4 810 2.6GHz processor, with an average score of 14.25 which falls only 7.4% behind the X3 720. Next is the X4 940 BE 3.0GHz processor with 15.74, which was 2.8% better than the triple-core 720. Last was the Intel Core i7-920, which scored an average 17.43, which figures to roughly 10.7% improvement over the Black Edition X4 940. As an indicator for graphics penalty, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 was used for the final test, and scored 16.33 for a differnce of -6.7% in performance.
AMD Dragon Final Thoughts
AMD hasn't been on the radar for a long time, perhaps too long. The Phenom II processor line has come to deliver everything that the predecessor was supposed to: performance with unmatched value. There's a lot for hardware enthusiast to like about the Phenom II processor series, primarily the Black Edition processors with unlocked capabilities. Unlike Intel's Extreme Edition (EE) CPU, which is usually a title reserved for one special unlocked processor at the top of their product family, the Black Edition Phenom II processor won't cost $1000. Unfortunately, it won't perform like the EE will though, either.
While AMD has certainly proven (to me) that the Phenom II processor line offers outstanding performance at substantial savings over the Intel alternative, I think there's a psychological obsession that most enthusiast consumers have with certain products. I won't get the social defect of admiring the most expensive product and considering it 'the best'. Sometimes, defining that term 'best' is not as easy as pointing at numbers on a benchmark. Take for example cell phone; the most expensive model is not necessarily the best performing, and it might be overpriced because of other features that inflate the products demand. Sometimes I think that gamers make this mistake, as I often see poor advice given to first-time system builders to spend as much as possible on the processor. Why?
If there's one thing our benchmarks have shown, it's that a processor that costs much less can still deliver identical gaming performance when you've got a half-capable video card. Even if you're not into PC-based video games, you're not likely going to see any real-world difference in computational tasks. The clock might know the difference between a 55-minute encoding session, and one that lasts 58-minutes; but you won't notice it. When it comes down to it, the things most people do with their computer system often fall under casual computing, and if you're one of the many people using the PC for little more than Web browsing, E-Mail, personal finances, and productivity tasks, then the only thing you'll notice is how much money you can save by using the much more affordable Phenom II processor on the Dragon platform.
Sure, there will be a long list of devout followers willing to spend the cash needed to build a bleeding edge Intel computer system. I know this to be true, or else we wouldn't have so many people reading our Core i7 and X58-Express Motherboard reviews. But I'm also aware of the economic climate that has effected every single person on our planet. With no noticeable real-world gain to be had from a Core i7-based computer system over a Phenom II system, it begins to make sense... and save dollars. The cost of our AMD Phenom II 940 BE, ASUS M3A78-T motherboard, and 4GB DDR2 came to $390. In comparison, the Intel Core i7-920 and Gigabyte X58 motherboard with only 3GB of DDR3 (all of which are the most affordable components of their series) still cost us nearly $800 and produced nearly identical real-world results.
Unlocked potential for overclockers, nearly identical real-world computing performance, and much more affordable system components. That sure makes a solid case for the Phenom II and Dragon platform. It also firmly places AMD back on our radar.
Phenom II X3 720 BE Conclusion
When I said that three cores is better than two, but not quite as good as four, there wasn't enough data to support my claim. But after watching the majority of our benchmarks prefer the Black Edition X3 720 2.8GHz processor over it's 2.6GHz quad-core sibling, my claim stands true. For many, performance may be defined as a artificial score from a synthetic benchmark. But when it comes down to it, the person who can play games, browse the Web, rip music, and update their personal finances at the same speed with one processor as they could another, I begin to become wary of how we calculate performance. If the Core i7-920 could render a better frame rate, or open my programs faster, I might easily declare the AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE a subordinate CPU. Since only a few benchmarks could place the Intel processor ahead of the AMD counterparts, it seems that we must rely on other factors to define performance... such as functionality, overclock ability, and value.
AMD Is certainly happy the Phenom II processor series has launched with success, and I'm certain the battered company could use a break from its recent history of 'bad luck'. Thankfully, the Phenom II series is bug-free and constructed the way we would expect a global name to produce products. The X3 720 BE may have started it's life intended on being a quad-core, but nevertheless it's built to perform, and offers every an excellent design for hardware enthusiasts to take advantage of the larger integrated heat spreader contact surface along with unrestricted overclocking potential. Adding DDR3 support to the integrated memory controller also helps, and if anything speaks to the level of refinement by AMDs engineering team.
Functionality is one particular area in which AMDs Phenom II processor series is already ahead of the competition. The irony is that it's really only going to get better as Intel prepares to launch yet another processor on a new socket. While the AM3 socket is completely backwards compatible to AM2+ sockets, the competition is already preparing to role out yet another socket to further divide its consumer base. You could read my Final Thoughts to under the upcoming concern, but when AMD is already making strides to provide more value across its product line, it's nice to also see functionality becoming a key asset.
Although we didn't go into detail on our overclock results (which will be published separately in another article), our preliminary results indicate that the latest AM3 processors are easily capable of giving everyone the opportunity to have more for less by through unrestricted 'Black Edition' overclocking. Enthusiasts and overclockers can cool the large contact surface while pushing the Phenom II X3 720 well past its limits, while pushing the core speed higher thanks to a forgiving architecture with plenty of headroom.
As of March 2009, the individual boxed retail packages using part number HDZ720WFGIBOX appear at NewEgg for $147. Using the Benchmark Reviews price comparison tool, there were several other online retailers offering deals, too. There are tray quantities available with part number HDZ720WFK3DGI.
In conclusion, the AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE processor receives my highest recommendation and approval. There aren't many applications that will utilize four processor cores, and when they do it seems that three is nearly as good. Quad-core doesn't translate into better performance, and Tri-core has proven itself superior for gaming as well computing. Take into account the phenomenal pricing and unlocked overclocking headroom, and it becomes easy to see why Black Edition HDZ720WFGIBOX has the potential to dominate both socket AM3 and AM2+ motherboards with either DDR2 or DDR3 system memory. You've probably also caught onto my repetitive reminder of how the Phenom II processors can perform so closely to the Core i7-920 in real-world computing that the added expense seems a waste; primarily because I've been using the X3 720 for a week now and have yet to notice a moment of difference between it and my Core i7 system. It's for these reasons that the X3 720 Black Edition has earned our Golden Tachometer Award.
Pros:
+ Unlocked 'Black Edition' allows unrestricted overclocking
+ Backwards compatible to socket AM2+
+ Flexible memory controller manages DDR2 or DDR3
+ Excellent real-world quad-core performance
+ 2MB L2 Cache, 6MB Shared L3 Cache
+ Equally impressive gaming performance
+ Large Integrated Heat Spreader for improved cooling
+ Outstanding value!
Cons:
- It's hard for users to accept an odd number of cores.
- Occasionally exhibits less performance than X4 810
Ratings:
-
Performance: 8.75
-
Construction: 9.75
-
Functionality: 9.25
-
Overclock: 9.25
-
Value: 9.00
Final Score: 9.2 out of 10.
Excellence Achievement: Benchmark Reviews Golden Tachometer Award.
Questions? Comments? Benchmark Reviews really wants your feedback. We invite you to leave your remarks in our Discussion Forum.
Related Articles:
- AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE AM3 Processor
- AMD Athlon-II X2-255 CPU ADX255OCGQBOX
- AMD Athlon-II X3-445 AM3 Processor
- AMD Phenom II X2 550 BE AM3 Processor
- AMD Athlon-II X2-260 Regor Processor
- AMD Phenom-II X6-1090T Black Edition Processor
- AMD Athlon II X2 250 AM3 Processor
- AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition CPU HDZ940XCGIBOX
- AMD Phenom-II X4-965 BE 125W CPU HDZ965FBK4DGM
Comments